Sonia Sotomayor: UNQUALIFIED

Never mind Sotomayor’s statement about her hope that a “wise Latina woman” would be a better judge than a “white male” – despite its inherent racialist insinuation and patent disregard for the longstanding and accepted notion of blind justice.

Never mind Sotomayor’s statement that the federal appellate court system in the United States is “where policy is made,” instead of within the halls of Congress – which represents the will of the People and the several States – where our founding generation intended federal policy to be drafted, debated, and passed into law.

Never mind Sotomayor’s membership in the National Council of La Raza, a political and ethnic-identity organization whose former CEO Raul Yzaguirre (at the time Sotomayor joined) was an advocate for illegal immigration, illegal alien benefits through government programs, amnesty, and the reduced sovereignty of the United States in favor of what has been commonly referred to as a “North American Union.”  And never mind that Sotomayor joined this group while serving as an allegedly objective judge responsible for upholding United States constitutional law in a federal appellate court.

Never mind Sotomayor’s position as member and Vice-President of the Board, and as Chairperson of Litigation and Education Committees with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund (PRLDEF) – an organization that has made ridiculous claims, such as: that by not giving taxpayer money to poor people who had engaged in irresponsible sexual behavior, had become pregnant, and wanted an abortion, the government’s behavior was comparable to slavery; and that the death penalty is “associated with evident racism in our society” – excerpted from a memo that Sotomayor signed.

Never mind Sotomayor’s largely unfavorable assessment by a multitude of lawyers who witnessed her demeanor as a judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Never mind that Sotomayor has had four of six (67%) appellate rulings overturned by the Supreme Court.

None of these issues are as damning as the fact that Sonia Sotomayor simply does not comprehend basic United States constitutional law (except perhaps the last one mentioned, which illustrates this point quite well).

It should be noted that this critique does not only apply to Sotomayor – it applies to every judge, politician, journalist, professor, or any other person involved in the dissemination of information, the teaching of law, or the creation and application of the law. The only way to protect our constitutional rights is to know and understand them, but if we are not taught properly what they are, then we cannot prevent them from being eroded. And if we allow someone who fails to grasp what the law means and how it is to be applied to take a position on our country’s highest court, then we are subjecting the entire nation to a great disservice.

Sotomayor has claimed that the Second Amendment – the right to keep and bear arms – is not a “fundamental” right. It is her belief that the amendment has not been “incorporated” against the states, as if protected constitutional rights cannot be applied in the States until the Supreme Court says so. Her position is based on her presumption that the Bill of Rights limits only the federal Congress from implementing laws that violate those enumerated rights. This position is entirely irrational and is refuted by the very words of the Constitution itself.

Representatives of the People from the several States created the Constitution. They designed and approved the construct and language of the document and understood very well what rights individuals inherently hold. To claim that these statesmen created a system in which the federal government was the only entity restricted from infringing on their individual rights is wholly absurd. It defies logic and asks one to admit that these people would intentionally exempt their state and local governments from respecting natural laws and rights.

At the same time, it is not only irrational, but it is also intellectually dishonest to claim that restrictions laid out in the Constitution are not intended to be enforced against state and local governments. It would require the citizenry, and especially the judiciary, to completely ignore the Supremacy Clause, which explicitly states that the Constitution – and naturally, the Bill of Rights – is “the supreme Law of the Land.”

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in the Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution

The “Land” includes all state and local governments within the geographical boundaries of the United States. Being the supreme law of the land, each amendment in the Bill of Rights within the Constitution equally applies to every state in the Union. In addition, every federal, state, or local judge must view constitutional law as superior to any other. 

Does any state or local government have the legal authority to restrict the freedom of speech? Does any state or local government have the legal authority to implement the use of cruel and unusual punishment? Does any state or local government have the legal authority to deny a citizen the right to a trial by jury? Of course, the answer to these questions is a resounding, “No.” However, it is the opinion of Sonia Sotomayor that the right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution and enforceable in each state of the Union.

The only conclusion that can be made by this claim is that she either does not understand constitutional law or that her personal views cloud her judgment – which means she is not an impartial judge who relies on strict legal interpretations and is absolutely unqualified to sit on the highest court in the country. Apparently, Sotomayor and others who advocate this line of thought are under the impression that the founding statesmen chose to deny the federal government the ability to oppress the citizenry and instead permitted all thirteen state governments to become institutes of tyranny.

In essence, it is their opinion that we can have 50 despotic governments as an alternative to none.

This is what happens when one’s ideology trumps reason and the law. Sotomayor’s personal views – that the Constitution’s written words ought to be interpreted broadly and in the context of today’s societal and political trends – cloud her judgment. Combined with her misunderstanding of hierarchical law in this country and her history of questionable statements and court decisions, she is utterly unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court…or any other court, for that matter.

This Supreme Court nominee ought to be rejected by any United States Senator who still believes in and seeks to defend the principles of constitutional law and equal justice under it.

Sonia Sotomayor may have a touching life story, but as is the case of the man who nominated her, moving narratives do not equate to rational judgment, superior intellect, or strong leadership.

Copyright © 2009 by RationalLiberty.com

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means without written permission by the author.

______________________________________________________________